Composers whose subsequent symphonies never matched their first published effort

[John H White]

Composers whose subsequent symphonies never quite came up to the standard of their first published efforts in that field.

I'm thinking of people like Louise Farrenc, Friedrich Gernsheim and his good friend Brahms.
   Cheers,
         John.

[Alan Howe]

I certainly wouldn't say that Brahms or Gernsheim didn't surpass their first efforts; I'd say Brahms' 4th was his greatest symphony and that Gernsheim's 2nd, 3rd and 4th surpass his 1st. But that's just my opinion...

[eschiss1]

I know Gade is sometimes, even often, held up as an example here/in this connection, so I'll mention him even know my own favorite and rather preferred Gade symphonies are probably 3, 5 and 6. Still, what I think and consensus should be separated conceptually (consensus among the smallish- though now growing- number who know the composer's music well; he's more sung nowadays, I know, and my local library has the BIS set of his complete symphonies and two copies of nos. 3&4 besides).

(Assuming the symphonies are numbered chronologically, which is not always the case, I find it hard to see a composer whose first symphony stands so far and above their rest that this would be a simple matter, anyways... excepting those who wrote two and the second - gah. There are things one can say reasonably objectively about music- the composer (appears to have) used this technique, and it (seems to have) achieved this result - and in fact one can work usefully that way- but ... ...)

[Gauk]

The obvious answer here is Walton, though I guess he can't be mentioned.

[eschiss1]

I remember when listening to his 2nd sym. on the radio once though that something caught my attention so strongly I had to use an idea sort-of-like it in a piece of my own (and at a certain level of generality I did so. Never finished my piece, though in its unfinished state it's still my favorite of all my pieces, for what little that's worth. You're right about Walton 1 being better, but 2 is under-rated. Anyway. Dietrich 2 is probably not quite as good as 1 if only since no one's bothering to edit and resurrect it- well- who knows.)

[Mark Thomas]

Dietrich wrote a second symphony, Eric?

[eschiss1]

didn't he?... *checks* Hrm. Parts to a Dietrich symphony in C, copies in ms., held at  Biblioteka Studium OO. Dominikanów. Archiwum Prowincji OO. Dominikanów, Kraków, description here - don't know for sure how complete it is, though, so I may be wrong...

Come to think though... it's conceivably a work by a different Dietrich, or even "Dytrych", of a different and earlier era ("con fundamento basso"? ... hrm.) (Only the copy, not the original, is pretty definitely of the 19th century or even definitely from a manuscript source, abschrift just meaning, I take it, that the copy is a manuscript/handwritten copy of something, itself , whatever the "something" was.) 

Attribution is not always so clear as librarians or others like to make out, of course. RISM included... So I withdraw my several-times repeated claim (not having even seen the manuscripts) of the Dietrich 2nd. (Still interested in that "Huber 1.5 in A major" but that's a different thread.)

[alberto]

I would indicate a xx century composer, but unashamedly romantic: Samuel Barber.
Barber himself withdrew his second symphony (except for the second movement, "Night Flight").
As for myself I like Barber second anyway, but it seems no match for the first one.

[Alan Howe]

The Dietrich C major work appears to be by the composer familiar to us - trying clicking on his name on the page to which Eric directed us. However...

[John H White]

I certainly agree about Walton. I remember how disappointed I was when I heard the first broadcast performance of his No 2, after having had to wait so many years for a sequel to the magnificent No 1.
    I forgot to mention Max Bruch, whose First symphony seems to me to completely overshadow Nos 2 & 3, just as with his violin concertos. However, on reflection, I'm inclined to agree that Brahms 4 is near enough on a par with his first symphony. Yet another symphonist I've just remembered who, in my opinion, falls into this category is John Knowles Paine.
     Cheers,
          John

[JimL]

... I forgot to mention Max Bruch, whose First symphony seems to me to completely overshadow Nos 2 & 3, just as with his violin concertos...

While Bruch's 1st symphony may overshadow his subsequent 2, I still consider his 2nd to be on its level of quality.  The 3rd is good but not really on the same level with the first two.  Maybe it's just that the 2nd was the first one I really got to know.

[Alan Howe]

No, I agree, Jim. No.2 is Bruch's best - despite its slightly odd three-movement structure.

[JimL]

It's not so odd, Alan.  After the first two movements a scherzo would have been out of place.  I believe part of the reason why Bruch S2 works so well is the integrity of the emotional journey embodied in the 3 movements.

[Mark Thomas]

Couldn't agree more. Bruch's Second is a really fine, serious, dark-hued work and by far the best of the three in my book.

[Alan Howe]

You're probably right, Jim. Glad we agree on its quality, though.